The student will weigh the opinions of
historians and attempt to come to a conclusion about genocide in Ireland during
the Great Famine.

Teaching/learning Strategies and
Activities:

Students will study the opinions of
historians and compare them with definitions of genocide provided.

Activity 1. Students will read
"Genocide", answer questions following the readings and discuss the issues
raised.

Instructional
Materials/Resources:

"Genocide" (see footnotes for
sources)

Irish Famine Unit VI
Activity 1

GENOCIDE

The American Heritage
Dictionary defines genocide as: "The systematic, planned annihilation of a
racial, political or cultural group."

The United Nations Convention on
Genocide, adopted by the U.N. in 1948 lists this as one of the acts which
qualify: "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its destruction in whole or part."

Richard L. Rubenstein in his book
The Age of Triage: Fear and Hope in an Overcrowded World offers yet
another definition. He states, "...a government is as responsible for a
genocidal policy when its officials accept mass death as a necessary cost of
implementing their policies as when they pursue genocide as an end in itself."
(1.)

BRITISH, IRISH AND
AMERICAN VOICES:

IMMORAL SELF-INTEREST

Oxford history professor James Anthony
Froude, who once wrote that Irish folk were "more like squalid apes than human
beings" wrote the following in his book, English in Ireland :
"England governed Ireland for what she deemed her own interest, making her
calculations on the gross balance of her trade ledgers, and leaving moral
obligations aside, as if right and wrong had been blotted out of the statute
book of the Universe." (2.)

Dr. GRAY

In his essay, "Ideoloqy and the
Famine", Belfast-born and Cambridge-educated historian Peter Gray wrote
that:

"It is difficult to refute the
indictment made by one humanitarian English observer in the later stages of the
Famine, that amidst 'an abundance of cheap food...very many have been done to
death by pure tyranny'. The charge of culpable neglect of the consequences of
policies leading to mass starvation is indisputable. That a conscious choice to
pursue moral or economic objectives at the expense of human life was made by
several ministers is also demonstrable."

Professor Gray concludes, however, that
British government policy "was not a policy of deliberate genocide", but a
dogmatic refusal to admit the policy was wrong and "amounted to a sentence of
death to many thousands." (3.)

PROFESSOR CLARK

Dennis Clark, an Irish-American
historian, wrote in The Irish in Philadelphia that the famine was "the
culmination of generations of neglect, misrule and repression. It was an epic
of English colonial cruelty and inadequacy. For the landless cabin dwellers it
meant emigration or extinction... (4.)

The dimensions of the calamity can
hardly be delineated by simple statistics. England had presided over an epochal
disaster too monstrous and too impersonal to be a mere product of individual
ill-will or the fiendish outcome of a well-planned conspiracy. It was something
worse: the cumulative antagonism and corruption of the English ruling class was
visited with crushing intensity upon a long-enfeebled foe. It was as close to
genocide as colonialism would come in the nineteenth century."

About the 50,000 evictions that took
place during the Famine, Clark wrote: "The British government's insistence on
'the absolute rights of landlords'" to evict farmers and their families so they
could raise cattle and sheep, was a process "as close to 'ethnic cleansing' as
any Balkan war ever enacted." (5.)

PROFESSOR DONNELLY

Professor James S. Donnelly Jr., a
historian at the University of Wisconsin, wrote the following in Landlord
and Tenant in Nineteenth-Century Ireland:

"I would draw the following
broad conclusion: at a fairly early stage of the Great Famine the government's
abject failure to stop or even slow down the clearnaces (evictions) contributed
in a major way to enshrining the idea of English state-sponsored genocide in
Irish popular mind. Or perhaps one should say in the Irish mind, for this was a
notion that appealed to many educated and discriminating men and women, and not
only to the revolutionary minority..."

But Donnelly concludes otherwise: "And
it is also my contention that while genocide was not in fact committed, what
happened during and as a result of the clearances had the look of genocide to a
great many Irish..." (6.)

COMMISSIONER TWISLETON

When the Irish Poor Law Commissioner,
Edward Twisleton resigned in protest over lack of relief aid from Britain, the
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Clarendon, wrote the following to
British Prime Minister Lord John Russell:

"He (Twisleton) thinks that
the destitution here [in Ireland] is so horrible, and the indifference of the
House of Commons is so manifest, that he is an unfit agent for a policy that
must be one of extermination." (7.)

In 1849 Twisleton testified that
"comparatively trifling sums were required for Britain to spare itself the deep
disgrace of permitting its miserable fellow subjects to die of starvation."
According to Gray, the British spent 7 million Pounds for relief in Ireland
between 1845 and 1850, "representing less than half of one percent of the
British gross national product over five years. Contemporaries noted the sharp
contrast with the 20 million Pounds compensation given to West Indian
slave-owners in the 1830s." (8.)

LORD CLARENDON

The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the
Earl of Clarendon wrote a letter to Prime Minister Russell on April 26th, 1849,
expressing his feelings about lack of aid from the British House of
Commons:

"I do not think there is
another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists
in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination."
(9.)

PROFESSOR SENIOR

Nassau Senior, a respected economics
professor at Oxford University said that the Famine in Ireland "would not kill
more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do any
good." (10.)

EDWARDS AND WlLLIAMS

In The Great Famine: Studies in
Irish History 1845-52 Editors R. Dudley Edwards and T. Desmond Williams
wrote:

"The political commentator,
the ballad singer and the unknown maker of folk-tales have all spoken about the
Great famine, but is there more to be said? If man, the prisoner of time, acts
in conformity with the conventions of society into which he is born, it is
difficult to judge him with irrevocable harshness. So it is with the men of the
famine era. Human limitations and timidity dominate the story of the Great
Famine, but of great and deliberately imposed evil in high positions of
responsibility there is little evidence." (11.)

JOHN MITCHEL

John Mitchel, leader of the Young
Ireland Movement, wrote the following in 1860:

"I have called it an
artificial famine: that is to say, it was a famine which desolated a rich and
fertile island, that produced every year abundance and superabundance to
sustain all her people and many more. The English, indeed, call the famine a
"dispensation of Providence;" and ascribe it entirely to the blight on
potatoes. But potatoes failed in like manner all over Europe; yet there was no
famine save in Ireland. The British account of the matter, then, is first, a
fraud - second, a blasphemy. The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but
the English created the famine." (12.)

OTHER IRISH
NATIONALISTS

In 1848, Denis Shine Lawlor suggested
that Lord John Russell was a student of the poet Spenser, who had inhumanely
calculated "how far English colonization and English policy might be most
effectively carried out by Irish starvation." (13.)

That same year a Cork City Councilor
named Brady told his audience that the British Prime Minister had "violated
every pledge previously made on arriving at place and power... a million and a
half Irish people perished, were smitten and offered up as a holocaust, whose
blood ascended to the throne of God for redress..., but the pity was that the
minister was permitted to act so with impunity."

On April 1, 1848, an editorial writer
in The Nation said, "It is evident to all men that our foreign
government is but a club for grave-diggers...we are decimated not by the will
of God but the will of the Whigs." (14.)

WOODHAM - SMITH

At the end of The Great Hunger,
Cecil Woodham-Smith concludes:

"These misfortunes were not
part of a plan to destroy the Irish nation; they fell on the people because the
government of Lord John Russell was afflicted with an extraordinary inability
to foresee consequences. It has been frequently declared that the parsimony of
the British Government during the famine was the main cause of the sufferings
of the people, and parsimony was certainly carried to remarkable lengths; but
obtuseness, short-sightedness and ignorance probably contributed
more."(15.)

"Much of this obtuseness sprang from
the fanatical faith of mid-nineteenth century British politicians in the
economic doctrine of laissez-faire , no interference by government, no
meddling with the operation of natural causes. Adherence to
laissez-faire was carried to such a length that in the midst of one of the
major famines of history, the government was perpetually nervous of being too
good to Ireland and of corrupting the Irish people by kindness, and so stifling
the virtues of self reliance and industry."

"In addition hearts were hardened by
the antagonism then felt by the English towards the Irish, an antagonism rooted
far back in religious and political history, and at the period of the famine,
irritation had been added as well...It is impossible to read the letters of
British statesmen of the period, Charles Wood and Trevelyan for instance,
without astonishment at the influence exerted by antagonism and irritation on
government policy in Ireland during the famine."

"It is not characteristic of the
English to behave as they have behaved in Ireland; as a nation, the English
have proved themselves to be capable of generosity, tolerance and magnanimity,
but not where Ireland is concerned. As Sydney Smith, the celebrated writer and
wit, wrote: 'The moment the very name of Ireland is mentioned, the English seem
to bid adieu to common feeling, common prudence and common sense, and to act
with the barbarity of tyrants and the fatuity of idiots."' (16.)

CHRISTINE KINEALY

At the end of The Great Calamity,
Christine Kinealy writes:

"While it was evident that the
government had to do something to help alleviate the suffering, the particular
nature of the actual response, especially following 1846, suggests a more
covert agenda and motivation. As the Famine progressed, it became apparent that
the government was using its information not merely to help it formulate its
relief policies, but also as an opportunity to facilitate various long-desired
changes within Ireland. These included population control and the consolidation
of property through various means, including emigration...

Despite the overwhelming evidence of
prolonged distress caused by successive years of potato blight, the underlying
philosophy of the relief efforts was that they should be kept to a minimalist
level; in fact they actually decreased as the Famine progressed." (17.)

BRITISH COLONIAL
POLICIES

Cecil Woodham-Smith, an Englishwoman,
wrote that "It is not characteristic of the English to behave as they have
behaved in Ireland." The following historical record offer contrary evidence.
Briefly consider five issues: British treatment of American prisoners during
the Revolution, British domination of the slave trade, British
government-backed "Opium War", British concentration camps used during the Boer
War, and the 1943 mass starvation in British-ruled Bengal, India.

1. BRITISH STARVED AMERICAN
REVOLUTIONARY WAR PRISONERS

During the American Revolution the
British put captured rebel soldiers, sailors, and civilians onboard floating
dungeons called "horrible hulks." According to Albert Martin in The War for
Independence, "They were worse than any prison ashore."

On the worst boat, H.M.S. Jersey,
nicknamed `Hell Afloat, "Prisoners were allowed half the Royal navy's
ration, and that was food rejected as too spoiled even for Her Majesty's
seamen. Rats and vermin swarmed through Jersey, spreading disease."

"Although the Jersey held
1,100 prisoners with more arriving daily, overcrowding was no problem, since
the dying made way for the newcomers. Each morning a Redcoat sergeant bellowed
through the bars, 'Rebels, turn out your dead. No fewer than five bodies
were hoisted up each day."

The only way to get off the hulks was
to change sides and enlist in the service of King George III. "British officers
constantly spoke of His Majesty's generosity toward rebels who mended their
ways. Yet very few accepted the offer to turn traitor. Their willingness to
suffer is proof of their devotion to the cause of American independence." Over
eleven thousand men died in these hulks, more than lost their lives in a11 of
George Washinqton's battles.. (18.)

2. DURING THE 17TH AND EARLY 18TH
CENTURY, ENGLAND WAS THE LEADING SLAVE TRADING NATION

According to a 1980 book, The
African Slave Trade , England began trading slaves in 1562 when London
merchants financed "three good ships" with hundreds of men in their crews, to
sail under the command of William Hawkins. In Guinea, they "got into their
possession, partly by the sword and partly by other means to the number of 300
Negroes at least." (20.)

Between 1795-1804 when English slave
trade was at its height, the following were the clearances for ships from the
three main English ports:

Port.

Slaves allowed by regulation

Ships

Liverpool

323,770

1,099

London

46,505

155

Bristol

10,718

29

"The value of British income
derived from (slave) trade with the West Indies was said to be four times
greater than the value of British incomes derived from trade with the rest of
the world. And this West India trade was in many respects the ideal colonial
system. The trade consisted in simple exchange of cheap manufactured goods for
African slaves, of African slaves for West India foodstuffs and tobacco; and of
these products, once brought to Europe, for a high return in cash."
(21.)

3. THE BRITISH USED WARSHIPS AND
TROOPS TO FORCE CHINA TO ACCEPT IMPORTED OPIUM

According to World History From
1500 the British wanted Chinese tea, but had nothing but cash to trade for
it. Their colony in India was producing a good crop of opium, but it was
prohibited in China except for medical purposes. The Chinese resisted illegal
British opium trafficking, and that led to the "Opium War". Britain used
superior firepower, ships and troops to force the Chinese to accept opium
sales. "The opium trade amounted to millions of silver dollars and hundreds of
tons of opium annually." (22.)

4. THE BRITISH STARVED THOUSANDS IN
BOER WAR CONCENTRATION CAMPS

Fifty years after a million Irish
people starved to death under British rule, the English fought their last great
imperialist war. Major-General Horatio H. Kitchener commanded the British
troops fighting the Dutch Boers in South Africa.

According to English author Thomas
Pakenham, in his 1979 book The Boer War, Kitchener hoped to defeat the
guerilla forces by destroying their means of support. He ordered the Boer farms
burned and all the cattle, sheep and other livestock killed. His soldiers then
rounded up all the men, women and children who were not guerilla fighters, and
put them into concentration camps near railroad lines.

One hundred and fifty thousand people,
white and black, were interned in camps with no running water, no meat, no milk
for the children, and little fresh fruit or vegetables. Humanitarians reported
that fever-stricken children-were dying in the dirt. Twenty to twenty-eight
thousand people died of malnutrition and related diseases, according to
Pakenham. British "methods of barbarism" in South Africa shocked the
world.

5. WHILE UNDER BRITISH COLONIAL
RULE, MILLIONS STARVED IN BENGAL, INDIA

According to Dr. Gideon Polya, a
professor in Victoria, Australian, the 1943-44 famine that killed an estimated
3.5 to 5 million people in Bengal was "man-made". Dr. Polya says that "the
British brought an unsympathetic and ruthless economic agenda to India" and
that "the creation of famine" was brought about by British "sequestration and
export of food for enhanced commercial gain."

He says that "British disinclination to
respond with urgency and vigor to food deficits resulted in a succession of
about 2 dozen appalling famines during the British occupation of India." These
swept away tens of millions of people. One of the worst famines was that of
1770 that killed an estimated 10 million people in Bengal (one third of the
population) and which was "exacerbated by the rapacity of the (British) East
India Company".

Dr. Polya writes that "An extraordinary
feature of the appalling record of British imperialism with respect to genocide
and mass, world-wide killing of huge numbers of people (by war disease and
famine) is its absence from public perception. Thus, for example, inspection of
a selection of British history texts reveals that mention of the appalling
Irish Famine of 1845-47 is confined in each case to several lines (although
there is of course detailed discussion of the attendant, related political
debate about the Corn Laws). It is hardly surprising that there should be no
mention of famine in India or Bengal."

The 1998 Nobel Prize winner in
economics, Indian-born Amartya Sen, was a childhood victim of the Bengal
famine. He said, "Any famine is easy to prevent if a government has the
incentive to prevent it. If the government generates the income, then the
market can deal with the supply problem very well by moving food." Famines
never strike democracies, Professor Sen contends. "Democracy gives a political
incentive for the government to intervene elected governments feel an
obligation to intercede on behalf of constituents. Autocrats feel no such
compunction."

If the above historical record is true,
then it is characteristic of British officials to behave as they
behaved in Ireland. However, one cannot conclude that the ruthless actions of
the ruling elite had the complete support of the British people.

THE CASE FOR GENOCIDE IN
IRELAND: A SUMMARY

1. British Laws enacted over centuries,
deprived the Irish of their land, language, trade, education, vote and
religion.

2. British racism against the Irish
people has been manifest for centuries, and has been used to dehumanize,
debase, criminalize and enslave the Irish. British racism also extended to
Africans, Indians, Egyptians and other conquered peoples.

3. The British government upheld the
absolute right of landlords to evict Irish families during a terrible famine
even in the dead of winter. Further, the Poor Law was encouraged landlords to
engage in eviction in order not to be bankrupted by poor rates for their
tenants.

4. The British allowed massive amounts
of food to be exported from Ireland during the Famine and justified it under
the doctrine of laissez-faire, or non-interference. However, British
interference in Irish trade has been prolonged and continuous, before, during,
and after the Famine.

5. The British authorities were well
aware that the Poor Law made landlords more likely to make a one-time payment
for "coffin ship" passage for their tenants rather that continue to pay taxes
for their upkeep in workhouses. Canadian officials repeatedly sent reports
informing British officials of the massive mortality rates on these
ships.

QUESTIONS:

Which historian or author provides
the weakest arguments about genocide? Which the strongest? Why?

Which, if any, of the three
definitions of genocide applies to British rule in Ireland?

Why is it important to consider the
other acts of starvation imposed by the British in the historical period before
and after the Famine?

Do the actions of the British
government related to the Revolutionary War prison ships, the slave trade, the
Opium War, the Boer War, and the Bengal famine influence your opinion about
whether or not the British were capable of genocide in Ireland?